Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 18.8.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat whereby order dated 27.7.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat directing the release of the vehicle on Spurdari to respondent No. 2 was affirmed. 2. A few facts need to be noticed in order to decide the controversy raised in the present petition. Raj Kumar (respondent No. 2 herein) had entered into hire purchase agreement dated 2.1.1996 with the petitioner in order to avail facility of finance to the extent of Rs. 2 lacs for the purchase of Mahindra and Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No. HR-10B-6819. On 24.5.2000, the said jeep was challaned and impounded by the Transport Officer, camp Sonepat. The petitioner applied for the release of the said vehicle to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat. Vide order dated 27.7.2000, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat directed the release of the vehicle to the registered owner that is respondent No. 2. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Appeal No. 24 of 2000 dated 27.8.2000. The same was dismissed vide order dated 18.8.2001 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. It is these orders which have been challenged in the present petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State counsel for respondent No. 1 at length. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2. 4. It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in terms of agreement dated 2.1.1996, the petitioner continues to be the owner of the vehicle in question and as respondent No. 2 has committed default in the payment of instalments and has not paid the entire instalments of the hire purchase money, therefore, he has violated the terms of the hire purchase agreement dated 2.1.1996 and for that reason the petitioner has a right to get the possession of the vehicle in question and get the released in favour of the petitioner from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat in favour of the petitioner being the financier and owner of the vehicle. In support of the stand taken reliance was placed on M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. Shri R. Kaishiulla Khan and others, 1993(2) RCR(Criminal) 175 (Karnataka) (DB) : 1993 Cr. L.J. 1069, Manipal Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. T. Bangarappa and another, 1994 Supp. In support of the stand taken reliance was placed on M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. Shri R. Kaishiulla Khan and others, 1993(2) RCR(Criminal) 175 (Karnataka) (DB) : 1993 Cr. L.J. 1069, Manipal Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. T. Bangarappa and another, 1994 Supp. (1) S.C.C. 507 and Charanjit Singh Chadha v. Sudhir Mehra, 2001(4) RCR(riminal) 192 (SC) : 2002(1) Civil and Rent Judicial Reports 426. 5. The State Counsel has justified the orders of the Courts below for the reasons stated therein. 6. It is apparent from the orders dated 27.8.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat that he had directed the vehicle in question to be given on Spurari to the registered owner on furnishing Spurdarinama for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs and two sureties in the like amount on the terms specified in the order. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat while dealing with the respective claims of the parties had observed in paras 6 to 9 of the order as under :- "6. There is no dispute about this fact that Raj Kumar has got financed the jeep in question from M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. and has taken a loan of Rs. 2,53,000/- which was to be repaid in 23 monthly instalments. As per case of Raj Kumar, he had paid a sum of Rs. 2,25,700/- to the revisionist. In this case, the vehicle was not impounded by the Finance Company but it was impounded by the Transport Inspector under th Motor Vehicle Act. With regard to the non-payment of the instalment, if any, it is a civil liability and for that reason if the vehicle is impounded by the Transport Authority under the Motor Vehicle Act, then it can not be released on Superdari to the Finance Company. The Finance Company can proceed under the law as per the terms of the agreement to recover the amount and the vehicle in question can not be released on Superdari in his favour. 7. My view in this regard is fortified by the dictum laid down in case of our Honble High Court, Didar Singh v. Shree Durga Finance Corp. Civil Lines Jalandhar, 1995(2) RCR 262. Same view is taken by our Honble High Court in case of Ganga Hire Purchase (P) Ltd. v. State of Punjab, 1995(2) RCR 446. 7. My view in this regard is fortified by the dictum laid down in case of our Honble High Court, Didar Singh v. Shree Durga Finance Corp. Civil Lines Jalandhar, 1995(2) RCR 262. Same view is taken by our Honble High Court in case of Ganga Hire Purchase (P) Ltd. v. State of Punjab, 1995(2) RCR 446. Similarly, in view of Tara Chand Boid v. Shikam Chand Bhora, 1995(3) RRR 94 the various receipts have been placed on file to show the payment of the instalments made by Raj Kumar to the Finance Company and in case of default the vehicle in question can not be released on Superdari to Finance Company 8. Sh. Ashok Malik, Advocate for the revisionist has cited before me Dinesh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, 1999(1) RLR 595 but this ruling is not applicable because the vehicle in question was not forcibly taken away by the financier. Similarly, M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. Shri R. Khalshiulla Khan and others, 1993 Crl. LJ 1069 is not applicable in this case. 9. Shri Ashok Malik, Advocate for revisionist has further cited before me Sham Lal Sood v. Jagdev Singh, 1994(2) RCR(Criminal) 21 (P&H) : 1994(2) CCJ 81 is also not applicable because no case of theft has been registered against the Finance Company by the owner rather the case was registered under the Motor Vehicle Act and naturally, in view of my dictum laid down in our Honble High Court case Didar Singh v. Shree Durga Finance Corporation (supra case) the vehicle can be released on Superdari to the registered owner i.e. Raj Kumar. Thus, the revision petition has no merits and is hereby dismissed accordingly. LCR be sent back. File be consigned to the record room." 7. It is manifest from the above observations of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat that it was admitted case of Raj Kumar, respondent No. 2 that he was required to pay to the petitioner accumulated amount of Rs. 2,53,000/- in 23 monthly instalments and had paid only Rs. 2,25,700/-. Thus, complete liability as such has not been discharged by respondent No. 2 in terms of the agreement dated 2.1.1996. 8. 2,53,000/- in 23 monthly instalments and had paid only Rs. 2,25,700/-. Thus, complete liability as such has not been discharged by respondent No. 2 in terms of the agreement dated 2.1.1996. 8. What are the rights of the financer in hire purchase agreement have been discussed in detail in Criminal Revision No. 486 of 2001, M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Limited v. Ramesh Kumar and another, 2002(3) RCR(Crl.) 111, decided on 9.5.2002. After taking notice of the provisions of Section 230 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), it was laid down in the above mentioned case that the object of invoking provisions of Section 230 of the Act is to recognise the hirer as the owner not only to retain the registration certificate in respect of vehicle which is subject matter of hire purchase agreement but also to help him to obtain the fitness certificate, get the vehicle insured, get the route permit etc. the necessary compliance of which is required to be done under the Act so as to run the vehicle without any hindrance from any quarter. It was also observed in that case that it would not mean that the hirer would become absolute owner because of the conditions of the hire purchase agreement. Hirer has to pay the amount in instalments so as to become absolute owner in terms of the hire purchase agreement. The petitioner was justified in claiming that interim custody of the vehicle in question be given to it till the payment of the instalments due under the hire purchase agreement. All these aspects were not taken notice of by the Courts below and for that reason the impugned orders have to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons the petition is accepted, the impugned order dated 18.8.2001 of the Additional Sessions Judge and order dated 27.7.2000 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat are set aside and it is directed that the vehicle in question be released on Spurdari to the petitioner on his furnishing necessary Supardariama containing the terms of the release to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat.